A tenant must prove the landlord–tenant relationship to claim notice of lease termination.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had orally leased him the suit property from 1 April 2003 for annual rent of Rs.4,800, and that he was cultivating and residing there.

He alleged that the defendants attempted to dispossess him and, during the suit, amended the plaint to claim that they had demolished a building, removed his household articles and dispossessed him on 23 February 2007.

The defendants denied the tenancy, stating that the plaintiff had only collected the yield from trees on the property for payment of coolie.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision. The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to notice terminating a tenancy before dispossession, without first determining the legal character of his possession.

Whether the courts below could deny protection against alleged forcible dispossession in the absence of a finding that the plaintiff had entered as a trespasser.

Whether the courts below properly assessed the evidence of alleged dispossession and damage, including in light of the amended plaint.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a second appeal does not warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact merely because a party disputes the courts’ assessment of the evidence.

A party asserting a tenancy must prove the landlord–tenant relationship; absent that proof, a claim to notice terminating the tenancy cannot succeed.

The judgment cites no other statute or precedent.

The plaintiff produced no document, rent receipt or other material establishing the alleged lease or payment of rent. His ration card and voter identity card, which gave the suit property as his address, did not prove a tenancy.

The courts below also found the evidence supporting the alleged trespass and damage unreliable; the timing of the application for a Commissioner further cast doubt on the alleged demolition and dispossession.

The High Court concluded that the plaintiff had not established the lease, lawful possession, trespass, dispossession or damage, and found no basis to disturb those concurrent factual findings under Section 100 CPC.

The Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments and decrees of the courts below. No costs were ordered.